add mapping.toml support#16
Conversation
Supports specifying: - a unique name for fields - a slope + offset conversion for a "mapped value" - a range-based conversion for a "logical value", that also includes a color code for the frontend The NodeManager now supports reading raw, mapped, and logical values by mapping name, requesting mapped fields from nodes, and writing mapped parameter values back as raw CAN values.
- load mappings from a directory - change mapping to be grouped by node - simplify some code
- mapping - node_manager
|
Hi, Also I noticed that the only way right now to request a new value is through the request_value method, which requires the mapped name. This means that there is no way right now to request a value without a mapping. I think it would make more sense for request_value to first look if the name is a raw value(and then request that) and only if that fails then look at the mapped names. As a consequence values could be accessed via mapped/raw names interchangeably. This behaviour would make more sense to me. What do you think? |
|
In #21 I cleaned this up a bit by adding |
since the mapping works with numeric values (f64's) we have to convert between booleans and numeric values. this should also help when interacting with js.
| sequence_result.unwrap_err(), | ||
| SequenceRunError::Aborted | ||
| )); | ||
| assert!(sequence_result.is_ok()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@fweichselbaum I updated the test expectation here because currently after running the abort sequence, run_sequence returns with success (unless the abort sequence itself is aborted, I guess). I'm not sure what we will do with the return value of run_sequence anyway, so idk what the correct behavior should be. Just fyi since it's a test you wrote.
|
@raffael0 pls have a look at my latest changes and feel free to merge if you're happy :) |
2 participants
Supports specifying:
NodeManager now supports reading raw, mapped, and logical values by mapping name, requesting mapped fields from nodes, and writing mapped parameter values back as raw CAN values.
I also added some validation rules for the mapping.
Depends on #14 because I read the path to the mapping from the config.
Please take a look at tests/mapping/example1.toml to see how a mapping file would look like. There are two ways to specify a mapping in there, which are only syntactically different, as toml has multiple ways to specify nested tables (=objects in json). The second example uses inline tables to a greater extent, and of course there are even more syntactically correct ways to write the same thing in toml.
I'll open this as a draft until we agree on the format of the mapping.